For Section 54, for LTCG the income administration entered into the construction agreement under the registration law and pay stamp duty for the value of the construction contract. To what extent it is acceptable for no promoter to follow it. Which, in the end, puts the ordinary in difficulty, which deprives all of its rights to LTCG Letter Facts of this complaint, told the respondent that the sale agreement does not comply with MAHA RERA rules. In addition, the applicant expressly supported the respondent on the following points. (i) that the agreement does not specify the location of the complainant`s car park (ii) that no public parking was provided at the time of booking, as stated in the agreement (iii) that the agreement stipulates that the respondent has the right to retain and operate the additional surface or installation, helipad or similar facilities, even after the transfer of the aforementioned project, and that it leaves it to the company later only. (iv) that the agreement stipulates that the property is surrendered and that the amenities will be handed over later after possession v) that the agreement provides that the respondent pays support costs for unsold dwellings only under INR 1000 vi), that the right-to-first (ROFR) provisions for the sale of dwellings do not comply with the rules of MAHA RERA RULES. (vii) that the agreement provides for the complainant`s agreement to have the tower painted once, every 5 years, which should be removed. (viii) that the agreement provides a compensation clause favourable to the respondent, but no clause for the complainant. In his intervention, the respondent addressed the 8 points for the following reasons. (i) that the respondent be prepared to indicate the location of the complainant`s parking lot in the agreement. (ii) This complainant was fully informed of the existence of the public car park at the time of award. (iii) amend the agreement to allow the respondent to maintain and operate the additional territory or facility, the liblock or similar facilities. The respondent will not be turned over to the company of the project in question until the project is passed on to the project company or as agreed between the company and the respondent.
(iv) that the approvals, as mentioned to the complainant and registered with MahaRERA, be submitted at the time of the surrender of ownership of those dwellings and that the clause to which the complainant refers provides that the amenities are provided in the broader order. (v) this project is amended to reflect the fact that the respondent must pay for unsold housing, as agreed between the respondent and the corporation. (vi) the aforementioned project is amended to reflect the fact that the PSR will only exist for the sale of such dwellings until the transfer of this project is entrusted to the company. (vii) the tower painting clause once every five years is removed. (viii) this project also provides assurances and guarantees on the part of the respondent, and no clarification is required. There is also a practical situation where failing contractors often do not come to register a formal agreement for sale.